After weeks of speculation, Newt Gingrich announced at the end of last week that he would not be putting his hat in the ring for the Republican nomination for President. Well, it was a crowded field anyway. Though I had no intention of voting for him, I was a little disappointed he would not be entering the race.
We have a large number of people seeking nomination for President. Six significant contenders for the nomination for the Democrats and about ten Republicans contenders on the other side. I love it! When we have more candidates, it is easier to get more issues discussed in a public forum. I think it increases the probability we will see meaningful dialog.
Before we know it, the earliest primaries and caucuses will be upon us. We can expect the numbers of candidates to plummet immediately after that. Some may endorse one of the other candidates. Some may hold out hoping to use their endorsement as some sort of bargaining chip. It largely depends on how important they feel that endorsement might be and what their ambitions are. Six months from now, it will largely be over.
That normally leaves a large span of time between the recognition of the inevitable nominees and the conventions. That is also normally a dead time in terms of public interest. It really should not be. There is no point when the people have more input in our government than in elections.
My preference would be to have the type of large fields of candidates that are only slowly sifted to finally arrive at the final nominees. That might engage the public in politics for a longer period. But all these states maneuvering to make their own selections earlier than ever works against that.
But for now, anyway, the election game is on. Enjoy it while you may.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 30, 2007
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Monday, September 24, 2007
Cutting Social Security Is Not A Moral Option
The U.S. Treasury Department is forecasting big trouble for Social Security in the coming years. Currently, it is saying the only way to avoid these problems is to either cut benefits or raise Social Security taxes or some combination of both. Their statistics would seem to bear that out.
I have a major problem with the idea of cutting benefits. I am still rather miffed over having my Social Security retirement age pushed back. Altering the promised benefits is breaking faith with the people who have paid into the system for so many years. Whatever we do, we must not do that!
Proper planning for retirement normally takes years. Some forward thinking people actually start their planning from the time they enter the workforce. Along the way, some have taken their retirement savings to start this or that business to try to provide an even better future for themselves. They have taken risks. Sometimes those ventures did not pan out, but they knew their Social Security would be there to fall back on. In a way, having Social Security has been a way of encouraging new business ventures.
No! We must not break faith with the people who have been paying into the system. It is immoral. That option must be taken off the table. There are other solutions.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 24, 2007
I have a major problem with the idea of cutting benefits. I am still rather miffed over having my Social Security retirement age pushed back. Altering the promised benefits is breaking faith with the people who have paid into the system for so many years. Whatever we do, we must not do that!
Proper planning for retirement normally takes years. Some forward thinking people actually start their planning from the time they enter the workforce. Along the way, some have taken their retirement savings to start this or that business to try to provide an even better future for themselves. They have taken risks. Sometimes those ventures did not pan out, but they knew their Social Security would be there to fall back on. In a way, having Social Security has been a way of encouraging new business ventures.
No! We must not break faith with the people who have been paying into the system. It is immoral. That option must be taken off the table. There are other solutions.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 24, 2007
Don't Just Sick There
A lot has been in the news recently about health care. Political candidates are talking about their health care programs, about how their solution is better than someone one else's, etc. This morning's news carried a report of a major labor union calling a strike largely over health care issues. There is no question that we're concerned about health care.
The fact that so many presidential candidates from both the Republicans and Democrats have been talking about how to improve the healthcare situation in this country has been encouraging to me. We have lots of uninsured people in this country whose employers do not provide health insurance. Many of them cannot afford the premiums for individual health insurance policies. Some have pre-existing medical problems that make it impossible to get individual health insurance even if they can afford it. Something needs to be done.
There are lots of proposals on the table. There are lots of complex issues to consider. My greatest fear is that our government will be so caught up in the "paralysis of analysis" that nothing will be done. That would be tragic!
As I have looked at the different proposals being made, I have become convinced that just about any of them are an improvement over what we have now. The last thing I want to see is a legislature so deadlocked over competing plans that it does nothing. But that is often what happens.
One side will want reforms with provisions A, B, C, G, and H. Another side will want reforms with provisions A, D, E, F, G, H, and I. Both sides have provisions A, G and H in common. Do they pass a single bill with just the parts they agree on so that something gets done? NO! They each hold those parts hostage trying to get everything they want for their side. So, nothing gets done!
The only winners in this type scenario are the pharmaceuticals and insurance companies. I have nothing against these businesses. I am so grateful they exist, and I want them to make money. I just don't want our society to be exploited by them. Unfortunately, it is in their interest to block change, and that is what they will try to do.
Bringing about health care reform will be extremely difficult regardless of whom gets elected. No matter what, some people will be unhappy. Debate and discussion are critically important. I just hope and pray they actually do something, and do it soon.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 24, 2007
The fact that so many presidential candidates from both the Republicans and Democrats have been talking about how to improve the healthcare situation in this country has been encouraging to me. We have lots of uninsured people in this country whose employers do not provide health insurance. Many of them cannot afford the premiums for individual health insurance policies. Some have pre-existing medical problems that make it impossible to get individual health insurance even if they can afford it. Something needs to be done.
There are lots of proposals on the table. There are lots of complex issues to consider. My greatest fear is that our government will be so caught up in the "paralysis of analysis" that nothing will be done. That would be tragic!
As I have looked at the different proposals being made, I have become convinced that just about any of them are an improvement over what we have now. The last thing I want to see is a legislature so deadlocked over competing plans that it does nothing. But that is often what happens.
One side will want reforms with provisions A, B, C, G, and H. Another side will want reforms with provisions A, D, E, F, G, H, and I. Both sides have provisions A, G and H in common. Do they pass a single bill with just the parts they agree on so that something gets done? NO! They each hold those parts hostage trying to get everything they want for their side. So, nothing gets done!
The only winners in this type scenario are the pharmaceuticals and insurance companies. I have nothing against these businesses. I am so grateful they exist, and I want them to make money. I just don't want our society to be exploited by them. Unfortunately, it is in their interest to block change, and that is what they will try to do.
Bringing about health care reform will be extremely difficult regardless of whom gets elected. No matter what, some people will be unhappy. Debate and discussion are critically important. I just hope and pray they actually do something, and do it soon.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 24, 2007
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Most Cooks Are In A Rut
Most cooks I know are in an allium rut. Alliums are foods like onions, garlic, shallots, and anything in that family of vegetation. Take these away, and many cooks flounder. I am keenly aware of this rut because I have an allergic response to these things. Fortunately, I am not deathly allergic. I would certainly be dead if I were because alliums are in so many many different things. No, my allergic response is that they upset my digestive system. I feel yucky and have a major acid attack.
Since I actually don't like the taste of onions or garlic, doing without those foods is no personal sacrifice. I had avoided them whenever convenient. But, I had never really discovered the cause of all my acid trouble until I decided to take garlic tablets for their health benefits. I didn't taste the garlic, but when I took the tablets I started having major attacks of acid indigestion. A little experimentation soon revealed that any alliums triggered this response.
Armed with this knowledge, I began reading food labels much more carefully trying to avoid anything with alliums. Only onions and garlic proved difficult to avoid. The other alliums are less frequently used.
I soon found people did not want to have me over for dinner because cooking around my allergy spoiled their recipes. Our society members seem to be as addicted to onions and garlic as they are to salt. Furthermore, since most people only experience health benefits from these things, chefs have no motivation to give them up.
Sadly, the cooks have fallen into a rut of relying too heavily on onions and garlic to flavor foods. Instead, they need find their creativity and introduce other fruits and vegetables into their stews and casseroles to enhance the flavors.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
September 22, 2007
Since I actually don't like the taste of onions or garlic, doing without those foods is no personal sacrifice. I had avoided them whenever convenient. But, I had never really discovered the cause of all my acid trouble until I decided to take garlic tablets for their health benefits. I didn't taste the garlic, but when I took the tablets I started having major attacks of acid indigestion. A little experimentation soon revealed that any alliums triggered this response.
Armed with this knowledge, I began reading food labels much more carefully trying to avoid anything with alliums. Only onions and garlic proved difficult to avoid. The other alliums are less frequently used.
I soon found people did not want to have me over for dinner because cooking around my allergy spoiled their recipes. Our society members seem to be as addicted to onions and garlic as they are to salt. Furthermore, since most people only experience health benefits from these things, chefs have no motivation to give them up.
Sadly, the cooks have fallen into a rut of relying too heavily on onions and garlic to flavor foods. Instead, they need find their creativity and introduce other fruits and vegetables into their stews and casseroles to enhance the flavors.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
September 22, 2007
Thursday, September 20, 2007
The Frugal Environmentalist
Frugal living often combines beautifully with caring for our environment. Perhaps you know someone who buys lots of plastic bags. Every time she wants another, she just reaches for the roll of plastic bags and peels off another. When she's through with the bag, she just throws it in the trash. This is her routine. It wastes money, and all that extra plastic in the trash is bad for the environment.
There are ways to have the convenience of a plastic bag when you need it. You can even reduce your ecological footprint, and save money at the same time. Here's a wonderful example that was shared with me. Give it a try.
The next time you reach the end of a box of facial tissues, don't throw that box away. Instead, reuse it in a different way. When you come home from the store, take those empty plastic bags you carried your purchases in and stuff them into the empty tissue box. You will find one box can hold quite a few bags. Then, whenever you need a plastic bag, you can simply reach for that tissue box and pull one out. You are doing your own recycling of plastic bags and tissue boxes. You are also saving money over buying small plastic bags from the store.
I keep one of these tissue boxes stuffed with bags in the trunk of my car. I never know when I might be out somewhere and find I need a plastic bag. I also keep an empty tissue box in my car to use as a trash collector. I burst out laughing when I saw disposable automobile trash bags being marketed in the store. My reused tissue boxes are sturdier and cost me nothing extra.
There are lots of simple, easy, and sensible ways we can make less of a negative impact on the environment. We need to make these types of adjustments fashionable. Use these ideas and share them with others.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 20, 2007
There are ways to have the convenience of a plastic bag when you need it. You can even reduce your ecological footprint, and save money at the same time. Here's a wonderful example that was shared with me. Give it a try.
The next time you reach the end of a box of facial tissues, don't throw that box away. Instead, reuse it in a different way. When you come home from the store, take those empty plastic bags you carried your purchases in and stuff them into the empty tissue box. You will find one box can hold quite a few bags. Then, whenever you need a plastic bag, you can simply reach for that tissue box and pull one out. You are doing your own recycling of plastic bags and tissue boxes. You are also saving money over buying small plastic bags from the store.
I keep one of these tissue boxes stuffed with bags in the trunk of my car. I never know when I might be out somewhere and find I need a plastic bag. I also keep an empty tissue box in my car to use as a trash collector. I burst out laughing when I saw disposable automobile trash bags being marketed in the store. My reused tissue boxes are sturdier and cost me nothing extra.
There are lots of simple, easy, and sensible ways we can make less of a negative impact on the environment. We need to make these types of adjustments fashionable. Use these ideas and share them with others.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 20, 2007
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Our Troops Need More Than Bumper Stickers
There are many people on both sides of the issue of whether or not we should be in Iraq who are in agreement on the need to support the troops. Sadly, many seem to think supporting the troops is simply a matter of supplying war material. There is much more to it than that.
Our troops need encouragement. They need our prayers. They need reasonable time away from deployment in Iraq to decompress and to tend to their families. An amendment to a defense bill that is before the Senate would have mandated that troops be given as much time between deployments to Iraq as they spent on their last tour in Iraq.
It is absolutely reasonable. It certainly makes sense to protect the mental and emotional health of the troops. Yet, it failed to get the sixty votes required to add it to the bill. My own senators both voted against the amendment. I sent them each e-mails expressing my displeasure with their votes. I think all the senators who voted against the amendment deserve to be raked over the coals for their lack of concern for the wellbeing of our soldiers.
I will list how the Associated Press reported their votes. A "Yes" vote would have supported the reasonable mandatory time between deployments. A "No" vote was against the measure.
Alabama
Sessions (R) No; Shelby (R) No.
Alaska
Murkowski (R) No; Stevens (R) No.
Arizona
Kyl (R) No; McCain (R) No.
Arkansas
Lincoln (D) Yes; Pryor (D) Yes.
California
Boxer (D) Yes; Feinstein (D) Yes.
Colorado
Allard (R) No; Salazar (D) Yes.
Connecticut
Dodd (D) Yes; Lieberman (I) No.
Delaware
Biden (D) Yes; Carper (D) Yes.
Florida
Martinez (R) No; Nelson (D) Yes.
Georgia
Chambliss (R) No; Isakson (R) No.
Hawaii
Akaka (D) Yes; Inouye (D) Yes.
Idaho
Craig (R) No; Crapo (R) No.
Illinois
Durbin (D) Yes; Obama (D) Yes.
Indiana
Bayh (D) Yes; Lugar (R) No.
Iowa
Grassley (R) No; Harkin (D) Yes.
Kansas
Brownback (R) No; Roberts (R) No.
Kentucky
Bunning (R) No; McConnell (R) No.
Louisiana
Landrieu (D) Yes; Vitter (R) No.
Maine
Collins (R) Yes; Snowe (R) Yes.
Maryland
Cardin (D) Yes; Mikulski (D) Yes.
Massachusetts
Kennedy (D) Yes; Kerry (D) Yes.
Michigan
Levin (D) Yes; Stabenow (D) Yes.
Minnesota
Coleman (R) Yes; Klobuchar (D) Yes.
Mississippi
Cochran (R) No; Lott (R) No.
Missouri
Bond (R) No; McCaskill (D) Yes.
Montana
Baucus (D) Yes; Tester (D) Yes.
Nebraska
Hagel (R) Yes; Nelson (D) Yes.
Nevada
Ensign (R) No; Reid (D) Yes.
New Hampshire
Gregg (R) No; Sununu (R) Yes.
New Jersey
Lautenberg (D) Yes; Menendez (D) Yes.
New Mexico
Bingaman (D) Yes; Domenici (R) No.
New York
Clinton (D) Yes; Schumer (D) Yes.
North Carolina
Burr (R) No; Dole (R) No.
North Dakota
Conrad (D) Yes; Dorgan (D) Yes.
Ohio
Brown (D) Yes; Voinovich (R) No.
Oklahoma
Coburn (R) No; Inhofe (R) No.
Oregon
Smith (R) Yes; Wyden (D) Yes.
Pennsylvania
Casey (D) Yes; Specter (R) No.
Rhode Island
Reed (D) Yes; Whitehouse (D) Yes.
South Carolina
DeMint (R) No; Graham (R) No.
South Dakota
Johnson (D) Yes; Thune (R) No.
Tennessee
Alexander (R) No; Corker (R) No.
Texas
Cornyn (R) No; Hutchison (R) No.
Utah
Bennett (R) No; Hatch (R) No.
Vermont
Leahy (D) Yes; Sanders (I) Yes.
Virginia
Warner (R) No; Webb (D) Yes.
Washington
Cantwell (D) Yes; Murray (D) Yes.
West Virginia
Byrd (D) Yes; Rockefeller (D) Yes.
Wisconsin
Feingold (D) Yes; Kohl (D) Yes.
Wyoming
Barrasso (R) No; Enzi (R) No.
Send a letter, fax, or e-mail to your senators and let them know how you feel about their votes. Don't let them think you don't pay attention or care. If you don't know how to contact them, just go to www.senate.gov.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 19, 2007
Our troops need encouragement. They need our prayers. They need reasonable time away from deployment in Iraq to decompress and to tend to their families. An amendment to a defense bill that is before the Senate would have mandated that troops be given as much time between deployments to Iraq as they spent on their last tour in Iraq.
It is absolutely reasonable. It certainly makes sense to protect the mental and emotional health of the troops. Yet, it failed to get the sixty votes required to add it to the bill. My own senators both voted against the amendment. I sent them each e-mails expressing my displeasure with their votes. I think all the senators who voted against the amendment deserve to be raked over the coals for their lack of concern for the wellbeing of our soldiers.
I will list how the Associated Press reported their votes. A "Yes" vote would have supported the reasonable mandatory time between deployments. A "No" vote was against the measure.
Alabama
Sessions (R) No; Shelby (R) No.
Alaska
Murkowski (R) No; Stevens (R) No.
Arizona
Kyl (R) No; McCain (R) No.
Arkansas
Lincoln (D) Yes; Pryor (D) Yes.
California
Boxer (D) Yes; Feinstein (D) Yes.
Colorado
Allard (R) No; Salazar (D) Yes.
Connecticut
Dodd (D) Yes; Lieberman (I) No.
Delaware
Biden (D) Yes; Carper (D) Yes.
Florida
Martinez (R) No; Nelson (D) Yes.
Georgia
Chambliss (R) No; Isakson (R) No.
Hawaii
Akaka (D) Yes; Inouye (D) Yes.
Idaho
Craig (R) No; Crapo (R) No.
Illinois
Durbin (D) Yes; Obama (D) Yes.
Indiana
Bayh (D) Yes; Lugar (R) No.
Iowa
Grassley (R) No; Harkin (D) Yes.
Kansas
Brownback (R) No; Roberts (R) No.
Kentucky
Bunning (R) No; McConnell (R) No.
Louisiana
Landrieu (D) Yes; Vitter (R) No.
Maine
Collins (R) Yes; Snowe (R) Yes.
Maryland
Cardin (D) Yes; Mikulski (D) Yes.
Massachusetts
Kennedy (D) Yes; Kerry (D) Yes.
Michigan
Levin (D) Yes; Stabenow (D) Yes.
Minnesota
Coleman (R) Yes; Klobuchar (D) Yes.
Mississippi
Cochran (R) No; Lott (R) No.
Missouri
Bond (R) No; McCaskill (D) Yes.
Montana
Baucus (D) Yes; Tester (D) Yes.
Nebraska
Hagel (R) Yes; Nelson (D) Yes.
Nevada
Ensign (R) No; Reid (D) Yes.
New Hampshire
Gregg (R) No; Sununu (R) Yes.
New Jersey
Lautenberg (D) Yes; Menendez (D) Yes.
New Mexico
Bingaman (D) Yes; Domenici (R) No.
New York
Clinton (D) Yes; Schumer (D) Yes.
North Carolina
Burr (R) No; Dole (R) No.
North Dakota
Conrad (D) Yes; Dorgan (D) Yes.
Ohio
Brown (D) Yes; Voinovich (R) No.
Oklahoma
Coburn (R) No; Inhofe (R) No.
Oregon
Smith (R) Yes; Wyden (D) Yes.
Pennsylvania
Casey (D) Yes; Specter (R) No.
Rhode Island
Reed (D) Yes; Whitehouse (D) Yes.
South Carolina
DeMint (R) No; Graham (R) No.
South Dakota
Johnson (D) Yes; Thune (R) No.
Tennessee
Alexander (R) No; Corker (R) No.
Texas
Cornyn (R) No; Hutchison (R) No.
Utah
Bennett (R) No; Hatch (R) No.
Vermont
Leahy (D) Yes; Sanders (I) Yes.
Virginia
Warner (R) No; Webb (D) Yes.
Washington
Cantwell (D) Yes; Murray (D) Yes.
West Virginia
Byrd (D) Yes; Rockefeller (D) Yes.
Wisconsin
Feingold (D) Yes; Kohl (D) Yes.
Wyoming
Barrasso (R) No; Enzi (R) No.
Send a letter, fax, or e-mail to your senators and let them know how you feel about their votes. Don't let them think you don't pay attention or care. If you don't know how to contact them, just go to www.senate.gov.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 19, 2007
Monday, September 17, 2007
Not Yet As The Crow Flies
When I was a young child watching the Jetsons on television, I dreamed of the day when we would have flying cars. It seemed so ideal. It would not matter where the roads were. We would just fly where ever we wanted. It's really simple to a child.
As I grew a bit older, my perspective changed. When I began driving as a teenager, I would have loved to have been able to get in my car and fly. I would not have to worry about sharp turns, because I could take the same path as the crows. So, I should be able to go just as fast as I wanted. Right? Well, maybe, if I had been the only one in the air.
As I have matured and found myself driving in one of the most traffic congested metropolitan areas in the nation, I have often wished I could rise above all the mess and fly to my destination. But, there's a major problem. I would not be the only one. I would have to avoid not only flying cars coming toward me, but those coming up from below me, those coming down from above me, and I must not forget those behind me.
Of course, it is true that airplane pilots contend with this sort of thing every day, but these are professionals. Also, they are not having to deal with the incredible number of different drivers all traveling at varying speeds to different destinations. These drivers meanwhile are talking on their cell phones, putting on their makeup, and lighting up their cigarettes and all without the aid of co-pilots. And they also have lots and lots of accidents.
No, we don't have flying cars like the Jetsons. But given the way I have seen people drive just on the streets and highways, I thank God that is so! Until the crazy drivers are removed from the mix, I am content to do my driving on the ground.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 17, 2007
As I grew a bit older, my perspective changed. When I began driving as a teenager, I would have loved to have been able to get in my car and fly. I would not have to worry about sharp turns, because I could take the same path as the crows. So, I should be able to go just as fast as I wanted. Right? Well, maybe, if I had been the only one in the air.
As I have matured and found myself driving in one of the most traffic congested metropolitan areas in the nation, I have often wished I could rise above all the mess and fly to my destination. But, there's a major problem. I would not be the only one. I would have to avoid not only flying cars coming toward me, but those coming up from below me, those coming down from above me, and I must not forget those behind me.
Of course, it is true that airplane pilots contend with this sort of thing every day, but these are professionals. Also, they are not having to deal with the incredible number of different drivers all traveling at varying speeds to different destinations. These drivers meanwhile are talking on their cell phones, putting on their makeup, and lighting up their cigarettes and all without the aid of co-pilots. And they also have lots and lots of accidents.
No, we don't have flying cars like the Jetsons. But given the way I have seen people drive just on the streets and highways, I thank God that is so! Until the crazy drivers are removed from the mix, I am content to do my driving on the ground.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 17, 2007
Universal Health Care Calls For Altruism
Will universal health care mean longer waits for doctor visits and other medical services? Duh! If people who can't afford proper health care now are given access to it in the future, yes, they will add to the lines and increase the wait time. At least, that is true initially.
The people most opposed to universal health care are people who already have insurance provided for them or who can afford to pay their medical expenses out of pocket. They don't want to see their wait times expanded by others who are not so privileged. That is certainly understandable, but it is also selfish.
Conversely, those who most want universal health care are people who don't currently have access to the quality care they need. Or they are people who have a close association with others in this predicament. Some would say that they have their own selfish reasons for wanting universal health care. The poor just want to inconvenience the rich to benefit their own health. Disgusting? I think not.
It takes time for supply to adjust to sudden increases in demand. If we were to suddenly get universal health coverage in the United States, there would be a definite immediate increase in demand for services. It would put a strain on the system. I firmly believe the health care system can and will adjust given time. But, I also believe the adjustment will not happen before the strain. Any body builder will tell you that you have to stress a muscle to make it grow.
Passage of legislation to bring about universal health care in America requires appealing to our higher natures, our more altruistic selves. The task is complicated. There are far reaching ramifications to every action. But, the the need is urgent and is not going to become less while we sit and analyze.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 17, 2007
The people most opposed to universal health care are people who already have insurance provided for them or who can afford to pay their medical expenses out of pocket. They don't want to see their wait times expanded by others who are not so privileged. That is certainly understandable, but it is also selfish.
Conversely, those who most want universal health care are people who don't currently have access to the quality care they need. Or they are people who have a close association with others in this predicament. Some would say that they have their own selfish reasons for wanting universal health care. The poor just want to inconvenience the rich to benefit their own health. Disgusting? I think not.
It takes time for supply to adjust to sudden increases in demand. If we were to suddenly get universal health coverage in the United States, there would be a definite immediate increase in demand for services. It would put a strain on the system. I firmly believe the health care system can and will adjust given time. But, I also believe the adjustment will not happen before the strain. Any body builder will tell you that you have to stress a muscle to make it grow.
Passage of legislation to bring about universal health care in America requires appealing to our higher natures, our more altruistic selves. The task is complicated. There are far reaching ramifications to every action. But, the the need is urgent and is not going to become less while we sit and analyze.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 17, 2007
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Alan Greenspan Speaks Out
Alan Greenspan has a new book out this week. Since he was chairman of the Federal Reserve for so many years and under so many different U.S. Presidents, this is getting a lot of attention. Though Greenspan himself is a Republican, he is reported to be saying that the Republicans deserve to lose this next election.
Chief among the reasons Greenspan says the Republicans deserve to lose is the amazing runaway deficit spending of the Bush administrations. That doesn't necessarily mean Greenspan will vote for Democrats in the next election. It only means he believes the Republicans deserve to lose.
Back in the days when I became a Republican, Republicans stood for fiscal responsibility. They also stood for individual liberty and some other things they seem to have forgotten about. It is safe to say I did not leave the Republican Party so much as the Republicans left me. But, that was a few years ago.
At his advanced age, I doubt Greenspan will leave the Republican party. But, it isn't stopping him from speaking out. We'll see how many people still listen.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 16, 2007
I have a late addition and possible correction. It seems the reporter upon whom I relied for some of the information may have gotten the story not quite right. Alan Greenspan commented upon the 2006 election and perhaps not the upcoming 2008 election. Here is the quote as reported by Fortune Magazine:
Where I had difficulties were on the fiscal side. We had a situation where the Republican Party had the presidency and both houses of Congress and the surplus. And I said, "Nirvana." We dissipated it. In the election of 2006 the Republicans deserved to lose, and the reason is that they had originally come to office with major policy initiatives, and they went out of office solely seeking power, and in the end they achieved neither. And I find that very saddening.
September 17, 2007
Chief among the reasons Greenspan says the Republicans deserve to lose is the amazing runaway deficit spending of the Bush administrations. That doesn't necessarily mean Greenspan will vote for Democrats in the next election. It only means he believes the Republicans deserve to lose.
Back in the days when I became a Republican, Republicans stood for fiscal responsibility. They also stood for individual liberty and some other things they seem to have forgotten about. It is safe to say I did not leave the Republican Party so much as the Republicans left me. But, that was a few years ago.
At his advanced age, I doubt Greenspan will leave the Republican party. But, it isn't stopping him from speaking out. We'll see how many people still listen.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 16, 2007
I have a late addition and possible correction. It seems the reporter upon whom I relied for some of the information may have gotten the story not quite right. Alan Greenspan commented upon the 2006 election and perhaps not the upcoming 2008 election. Here is the quote as reported by Fortune Magazine:
Where I had difficulties were on the fiscal side. We had a situation where the Republican Party had the presidency and both houses of Congress and the surplus. And I said, "Nirvana." We dissipated it. In the election of 2006 the Republicans deserved to lose, and the reason is that they had originally come to office with major policy initiatives, and they went out of office solely seeking power, and in the end they achieved neither. And I find that very saddening.
September 17, 2007
Pride, Power, and Political Corruption
Who dares to preach to another on the subject of too much pride? Doesn't the preacher who points out such weakness in others risk falling guilty of the same sin? But, someone needs to do it.
Proverbs 16:8 says, "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." This ancient truth is just as applicable to us today. This is clearly borne out in the numerous scandals involving Republican politicians that have come to light in recent months.
Republicans swelled with pride over their domination of both the executive and legislative branches of our government. They dropped their collective guard against the vices so alluring to persons of power. It has become clear that a few notable examples, while drunk on the power of majority, have abused their positions.
Thinking back on when the Democrats were in a similar position of power, I recall several instances of corruption that emerged at that time. The Democrats presently hold a majority position(however slim) in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. They are likely to increase that majority and take the White House in the next national election. I genuinely expect that by 2010 we will see numerous examples of official corruption among Democrats.
It seems being in the position of power encourages bad behavior. Each party is at its collective best when in a position of minority. I wish it were not so. But, neither party is inherently good or inherently evil. Moral vigilance is required at all times, but especially during times of political success.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 16, 2007
Proverbs 16:8 says, "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." This ancient truth is just as applicable to us today. This is clearly borne out in the numerous scandals involving Republican politicians that have come to light in recent months.
Republicans swelled with pride over their domination of both the executive and legislative branches of our government. They dropped their collective guard against the vices so alluring to persons of power. It has become clear that a few notable examples, while drunk on the power of majority, have abused their positions.
Thinking back on when the Democrats were in a similar position of power, I recall several instances of corruption that emerged at that time. The Democrats presently hold a majority position(however slim) in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. They are likely to increase that majority and take the White House in the next national election. I genuinely expect that by 2010 we will see numerous examples of official corruption among Democrats.
It seems being in the position of power encourages bad behavior. Each party is at its collective best when in a position of minority. I wish it were not so. But, neither party is inherently good or inherently evil. Moral vigilance is required at all times, but especially during times of political success.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 16, 2007
Name Calling Is For Children
When I was in elementary school, one of the cruel things the children would do would be to make fun of someone and use that person's name in a cruel way. They might taunt with something like, "Howard is a coward," or "Patty is a fatty."
The attack was mean, and since it involved the person's name, it was undeniably personal. It was often based on little more than a rhyme or similarity of sound. But, the simplicity of it made it catchy.
Last week, MoveOn.Org regressed to such playground name calling by referring to General Petraeus as "General Betray Us." It reminded me of the stupid attack Jerry Falwell once lodged against Ellen DeGeneres by calling her "Ellen Degenerate." It was vicious. It was personal. And by using the surname, it attacked the entire family.
We can disagree on a lot of things. But if we want to be taken seriously, we need to disagree as adults. We can attack each other's positions without making it unnecessarily personal. MoveOn.Org crossed the line on decency. They should be big enough to apologize and purpose not to resort to such childish tactics in the future.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 16, 2007
The attack was mean, and since it involved the person's name, it was undeniably personal. It was often based on little more than a rhyme or similarity of sound. But, the simplicity of it made it catchy.
Last week, MoveOn.Org regressed to such playground name calling by referring to General Petraeus as "General Betray Us." It reminded me of the stupid attack Jerry Falwell once lodged against Ellen DeGeneres by calling her "Ellen Degenerate." It was vicious. It was personal. And by using the surname, it attacked the entire family.
We can disagree on a lot of things. But if we want to be taken seriously, we need to disagree as adults. We can attack each other's positions without making it unnecessarily personal. MoveOn.Org crossed the line on decency. They should be big enough to apologize and purpose not to resort to such childish tactics in the future.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 16, 2007
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Beware The Fraudulent Electronic Check
During a routine online check of my bank account, today, I discovered a fraudulent check charge. Apparently, an electronic check made out to [name deleted] was drawn on my checking account a couple of days ago. This was in the amount of $39.90 and is completely fraudulent. It has no relation to any transactions I have made and is payable to a company with whom I have no dealings.
I did a quick check online and found that www.RipoffReport.com has other reports of [name deleted] cashing fraudulent electronic checks. I called my bank and finally got through to a live person who transferred me to the fraudulent check claims division where I got a recording telling me to call back during normal business hours. Today is Saturday, so resolving this will have to wait until next week.
The moral of this story is that you need to keep a close watch on your financial accounts whether you have used them recently, or not. The information necessary to commit this type of electronic check fraud is available on any paper check you write. So, never using online payment services is no protection against it happening to you. You want to catch the theft as soon as possible, so keep a close eye on all your accounts.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 15, 2007
I did a quick check online and found that www.RipoffReport.com has other reports of [name deleted] cashing fraudulent electronic checks. I called my bank and finally got through to a live person who transferred me to the fraudulent check claims division where I got a recording telling me to call back during normal business hours. Today is Saturday, so resolving this will have to wait until next week.
The moral of this story is that you need to keep a close watch on your financial accounts whether you have used them recently, or not. The information necessary to commit this type of electronic check fraud is available on any paper check you write. So, never using online payment services is no protection against it happening to you. You want to catch the theft as soon as possible, so keep a close eye on all your accounts.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 15, 2007
Friday, September 14, 2007
Declaration For Energy Independence
The United States needs a determined commitment to energy independence, and we need it NOW! According to the NRDC we spend more than $13 million per hour on foreign petroleum products. That's more than half our national petroleum consumption.
There are several reasons we must have energy independence. Here are a few:
1) Energy is essential to our economy and our security. It's our lifeblood. We cannot continue the risk of being at any other nation's mercy in this regard.
2) Purchasing so much of our energy abroad is having a devastating effect on our balance of trade.
3) Much of what we spend on foreign sources of energy goes into the hands of governments and groups hostile to the United States. We are giving them the money to fund terrorism.
4) Dependence on foreign oil has hijacked our nation's foreign policy.
5) Dependence on foreign sources of energy can lead us into war. Many would argue that it already has.
One of the reasons we don't have energy independence is because we rely so heavily on petroleum based energy sources. Even if we exploit all the known and suspected domestic deposits of oil fully (regardless of the environmental impact), we will still not be able to replace all the oil we are importing from abroad. We cannot use what we do not have.
The only way we will successfully achieve national energy independence is by developing other sources. This takes initiative. This takes determination. This takes ingenuity. This takes MONEY.
My Congressman, David Scott, recently sent me an e-mail in which he wrote, " I have joined as a co-sponsor of H.R. 395, the Cellulosic Ethanol Development and Implementation Act, which would authorize $1 billion in grants for research and development in cellulosic ethanol fuel." I applaud his efforts; I really do. But, what is a $1 billion investment in our future compared to the $2 billion we are gobbling up every week on the war in Iraq?
We won't have energy independence for this country until our citizens demand it. Only then will we be able to marshall the financial and intellectual resources to bring it about. I firmly believe it is past due.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
September 14, 2007,
There are several reasons we must have energy independence. Here are a few:
1) Energy is essential to our economy and our security. It's our lifeblood. We cannot continue the risk of being at any other nation's mercy in this regard.
2) Purchasing so much of our energy abroad is having a devastating effect on our balance of trade.
3) Much of what we spend on foreign sources of energy goes into the hands of governments and groups hostile to the United States. We are giving them the money to fund terrorism.
4) Dependence on foreign oil has hijacked our nation's foreign policy.
5) Dependence on foreign sources of energy can lead us into war. Many would argue that it already has.
One of the reasons we don't have energy independence is because we rely so heavily on petroleum based energy sources. Even if we exploit all the known and suspected domestic deposits of oil fully (regardless of the environmental impact), we will still not be able to replace all the oil we are importing from abroad. We cannot use what we do not have.
The only way we will successfully achieve national energy independence is by developing other sources. This takes initiative. This takes determination. This takes ingenuity. This takes MONEY.
My Congressman, David Scott, recently sent me an e-mail in which he wrote, " I have joined as a co-sponsor of H.R. 395, the Cellulosic Ethanol Development and Implementation Act, which would authorize $1 billion in grants for research and development in cellulosic ethanol fuel." I applaud his efforts; I really do. But, what is a $1 billion investment in our future compared to the $2 billion we are gobbling up every week on the war in Iraq?
We won't have energy independence for this country until our citizens demand it. Only then will we be able to marshall the financial and intellectual resources to bring it about. I firmly believe it is past due.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
September 14, 2007,
Just A Dollar
When I started this blog, I decided to call it, "Wade's Two Cents." But, the feedback I have been getting tells me I have a growing readership. So, for this blog entry, I decided to set my sights a bit higher. Let's talk about a dollar.
I enjoy shopping in dollar stores. You know what I mean, those stores where everything they sell goes for a dollar or less. Generally, these stores buy up large quantities of distressed merchandise. Now, the term "distressed merchandise" has nothing to do with the emotional state of the products. Rather, their previous owners (either manufacturers or middle men) are in distress because for some reason they need to dump the product. Maybe it hasn't been selling. Maybe they are going out of business. Maybe they got into financial trouble. Whatever the reason, they needed to unload their inventory in a hurry. So, they slashed their prices so low that these dollar type stores could buy them up, sell them for one dollar each, and still make a profit.
You can find some really good stuff in dollar stores. The inventory keeps changing, too. That is the nature of distressed merchandise. When the manufacturer is discontinuing a line or going out of business, you can't expect to keep getting a steady supply of the product. But many of these stores do try to keep certain things in supply. Take off the shelf reading glasses for example. You can pay as much as twelve dollars or more for a pair of these glasses if you pick them up at a pharmacy or department store. But, we found a dollar store that stocks them regularly. Whenever we need another pair, we don't even consider buying them anywhere else.
I keep a pair of polarized sunglasses in my car at all times. I consider that a vital part of driving safety. But, one day I broke my sunglasses. I'm not terribly fashion conscious while driving, and so, without a moment's hesitation, I swung by a dollar store and bought a replacement.
There are some important things to remember, though, about shopping in one of these stores. Sometimes distressed merchandise is distressed for a very good reason. A thing can be of less value than the sum of its parts. I have found a lot of useless kitchen gadgets that seem to fall in this category. There have been many items someone would have had to pay me to carry out.
Consider alternate uses for things. Perhaps, there is a huge bottle of shampoo available for a dollar. You might be afraid to use it on your hair, but it might make a suitable refill for your liquid soap dispensers. Those figurines on the shelf might look hideous on your coffee table. But if they are water safe, they might be just the accent piece for your aquarium.
Knowing what is available at a local dollar store can inform your other bargain hunting as well. I am a frequent visitor at a local thrift store. There have been numerous times when I have passed up a thrift store bargain because I knew where I could get an even better deal for only a dollar. I am sure the same thing could apply to yard sales.
Watch out, though, for some items that are actually overpriced at a dollar. These stores have been successful in getting people into a buying mood snapping up bargains for a dollar each. They catch customers when their sales resistance is down. Then, they will throw something else into the mix also priced at one dollar that may normally retail at a different store for 78 cents. You may want to buy your candy bars somewhere else.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 14, 2007
I enjoy shopping in dollar stores. You know what I mean, those stores where everything they sell goes for a dollar or less. Generally, these stores buy up large quantities of distressed merchandise. Now, the term "distressed merchandise" has nothing to do with the emotional state of the products. Rather, their previous owners (either manufacturers or middle men) are in distress because for some reason they need to dump the product. Maybe it hasn't been selling. Maybe they are going out of business. Maybe they got into financial trouble. Whatever the reason, they needed to unload their inventory in a hurry. So, they slashed their prices so low that these dollar type stores could buy them up, sell them for one dollar each, and still make a profit.
You can find some really good stuff in dollar stores. The inventory keeps changing, too. That is the nature of distressed merchandise. When the manufacturer is discontinuing a line or going out of business, you can't expect to keep getting a steady supply of the product. But many of these stores do try to keep certain things in supply. Take off the shelf reading glasses for example. You can pay as much as twelve dollars or more for a pair of these glasses if you pick them up at a pharmacy or department store. But, we found a dollar store that stocks them regularly. Whenever we need another pair, we don't even consider buying them anywhere else.
I keep a pair of polarized sunglasses in my car at all times. I consider that a vital part of driving safety. But, one day I broke my sunglasses. I'm not terribly fashion conscious while driving, and so, without a moment's hesitation, I swung by a dollar store and bought a replacement.
There are some important things to remember, though, about shopping in one of these stores. Sometimes distressed merchandise is distressed for a very good reason. A thing can be of less value than the sum of its parts. I have found a lot of useless kitchen gadgets that seem to fall in this category. There have been many items someone would have had to pay me to carry out.
Consider alternate uses for things. Perhaps, there is a huge bottle of shampoo available for a dollar. You might be afraid to use it on your hair, but it might make a suitable refill for your liquid soap dispensers. Those figurines on the shelf might look hideous on your coffee table. But if they are water safe, they might be just the accent piece for your aquarium.
Knowing what is available at a local dollar store can inform your other bargain hunting as well. I am a frequent visitor at a local thrift store. There have been numerous times when I have passed up a thrift store bargain because I knew where I could get an even better deal for only a dollar. I am sure the same thing could apply to yard sales.
Watch out, though, for some items that are actually overpriced at a dollar. These stores have been successful in getting people into a buying mood snapping up bargains for a dollar each. They catch customers when their sales resistance is down. Then, they will throw something else into the mix also priced at one dollar that may normally retail at a different store for 78 cents. You may want to buy your candy bars somewhere else.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 14, 2007
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Get Ready For The Big Sale
Have you ever been to a store and found something advertised as 20% off only to realize the sale price is about the same as the product was a few months before? It's an old gimmick merchants have been using for years. They raise the price only to lower it later and promote it as a sale.
It looks very much like the Bush administration is trying to put that kind of spin on their proposed troop reduction by July of next year. The reduction will bring the U.S. forces in Iraq back down to the level they were before the surge. The surge was always intended to be temporary. It cannot be maintained without seriously over stressing the troops. So, Bush is trying to spin it like doing what they MUST do is some mark of progress. The question is, "Will the public buy what they are selling?"
Many of the Republicans in Congress are jumping on board with this promotion. I believe they are primarily playing to their own constituencies. They need to point to something to suggest the Iraqi situation is really not the quagmire it seems.
At the same time, many Democrats are calling for bigger troop reductions sooner. They are even talking of passing legislation to mandate such action. They have little concern for the consequences because they know there is no chance of having the votes needed to override a presidential veto. It's all a game to keep the American public focused on placing the blame for the war on the Republicans.
Both Republicans and Democrats are spinning like crazy. I see a lot of politics and very little statesmanship. But, the sale is on!
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 13, 2007
It looks very much like the Bush administration is trying to put that kind of spin on their proposed troop reduction by July of next year. The reduction will bring the U.S. forces in Iraq back down to the level they were before the surge. The surge was always intended to be temporary. It cannot be maintained without seriously over stressing the troops. So, Bush is trying to spin it like doing what they MUST do is some mark of progress. The question is, "Will the public buy what they are selling?"
Many of the Republicans in Congress are jumping on board with this promotion. I believe they are primarily playing to their own constituencies. They need to point to something to suggest the Iraqi situation is really not the quagmire it seems.
At the same time, many Democrats are calling for bigger troop reductions sooner. They are even talking of passing legislation to mandate such action. They have little concern for the consequences because they know there is no chance of having the votes needed to override a presidential veto. It's all a game to keep the American public focused on placing the blame for the war on the Republicans.
Both Republicans and Democrats are spinning like crazy. I see a lot of politics and very little statesmanship. But, the sale is on!
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 13, 2007
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
It Goes Without Saying, Or Does It?
"It goes without saying that. . ." I don't know how many times I have heard that expression. The most recent was just a few hours ago in a newscast. It's an idiotic expression because the speaker always follows it up with saying whatever "it" is.
When the expression comes up I find myself wanting to scream, "It would have gone without saying, but you blew it! You've said it now. So, it didn't get to go without saying."
The idiocy of such statements is that the speaker makes a liar of him/herself even as he/she speaks. Somehow, the fact of that escapes the person. Why is that? Don't people listen to themselves?
Just a few minutes after that report went off, I was listening to yet another newscaster use the phrase, "Needless to say, . . ." Yes, he went on to say exactly the thing he just told us was needless to speak about. I don't know about you, but I don't tune into news reports with the intention of listening to people babbling on about things they think are not necessary to say.
Do we really mean it when we say, "it goes without saying," or "needless to say"? If not, we need to drop such phrases from our speech. If we do mean them, then we need to know when to shut up and not say. Needless to say, all this goes without saying, or it would have if I had just kept it to myself.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
September 12, 2007
When the expression comes up I find myself wanting to scream, "It would have gone without saying, but you blew it! You've said it now. So, it didn't get to go without saying."
The idiocy of such statements is that the speaker makes a liar of him/herself even as he/she speaks. Somehow, the fact of that escapes the person. Why is that? Don't people listen to themselves?
Just a few minutes after that report went off, I was listening to yet another newscaster use the phrase, "Needless to say, . . ." Yes, he went on to say exactly the thing he just told us was needless to speak about. I don't know about you, but I don't tune into news reports with the intention of listening to people babbling on about things they think are not necessary to say.
Do we really mean it when we say, "it goes without saying," or "needless to say"? If not, we need to drop such phrases from our speech. If we do mean them, then we need to know when to shut up and not say. Needless to say, all this goes without saying, or it would have if I had just kept it to myself.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
September 12, 2007
Global Warming Speeds Up - Naturally
Those who study global warming talk about a tipping point. That is, there comes a point when we have gone so far into the process of global warming, it cannot be halted. How can that be?
Well, consider the polar ice caps. The ice reflects large amounts of light and heat back into space. The world is cooler than it would be otherwise because we have these great areas of packed snow and ice. But, the ice caps are diminishing. The north and south polar regions are actually heating up faster than the rest of the planet. The Arctic is melting exposing more open sea which absorbs light and heat much more than the ice. The same sort of thing is happening to the ice shelves in the Antarctic. So, there is less ice to reflect light and heat. The planet heats up more. The melting gets faster. And so on.
Now consider the matter of permafrost. Permafrost is ground that so cold it remains frozen year round. There are several areas of permafrost around the world. Many of these are actually frozen bogs. Over the past few years, as the world has been heating up, a growing number of these sections have been defrosting. They are no longer permafrost.
The problem lies in that the frozen state of these bogs kept contained large quantities of methane gas. Methane in the environment is a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere the way carbon dioxide does, but it is 25 times more powerful in its heat trapping action. As the permafrost melts it is releasing huge amounts of methane into the atmosphere. This is speeding up the process of global warming.
So, with the melting of the polar ice and the release of methane with the defrosting of permafrost, we have two examples in which nature itself has joined in the process of heating up our planet. When the tipping point is reached, nature will keep the process of global warming rolling even if all of the human contributions cease. There can be no going back.
Because the polar regions are showing more drastic warming trends than the rest of the planet, the natural contributions to the global warming factors are entering the picture sooner than expected and to a greater extent. This means that the furthermost out (later in time) predictions of when the tipping point would be reached are definitely wrong. The climate change is not going to be nearly as gradual as we hoped.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 12, 2007
Well, consider the polar ice caps. The ice reflects large amounts of light and heat back into space. The world is cooler than it would be otherwise because we have these great areas of packed snow and ice. But, the ice caps are diminishing. The north and south polar regions are actually heating up faster than the rest of the planet. The Arctic is melting exposing more open sea which absorbs light and heat much more than the ice. The same sort of thing is happening to the ice shelves in the Antarctic. So, there is less ice to reflect light and heat. The planet heats up more. The melting gets faster. And so on.
Now consider the matter of permafrost. Permafrost is ground that so cold it remains frozen year round. There are several areas of permafrost around the world. Many of these are actually frozen bogs. Over the past few years, as the world has been heating up, a growing number of these sections have been defrosting. They are no longer permafrost.
The problem lies in that the frozen state of these bogs kept contained large quantities of methane gas. Methane in the environment is a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere the way carbon dioxide does, but it is 25 times more powerful in its heat trapping action. As the permafrost melts it is releasing huge amounts of methane into the atmosphere. This is speeding up the process of global warming.
So, with the melting of the polar ice and the release of methane with the defrosting of permafrost, we have two examples in which nature itself has joined in the process of heating up our planet. When the tipping point is reached, nature will keep the process of global warming rolling even if all of the human contributions cease. There can be no going back.
Because the polar regions are showing more drastic warming trends than the rest of the planet, the natural contributions to the global warming factors are entering the picture sooner than expected and to a greater extent. This means that the furthermost out (later in time) predictions of when the tipping point would be reached are definitely wrong. The climate change is not going to be nearly as gradual as we hoped.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 12, 2007
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Where Are The True Patriots?
Six years ago today, I was driving to work and listening to music on the radio. The broadcast was interrupted to report that a jetliner had just crashed into the Pentagon. I was stunned. When I got to the office, I learned that planes had also hit the World Trade Center in New York. Then, another plane went down in Pennsylvania.
We remember well the horror of that day. We were angry, confused, and fearful all at the same time. We weren't sure who had done this, or why.
Eventually, the truth came out, and we responded. We reacted militarily in Afghanistan and legislatively in Congress. To their everlasting shame, our elected representatives ignored their oaths to uphold the Constitution of the United States and passed the Patriot Act.
Certainly, there were some new security measures called for. That is not in dispute. But to trample on the liberty our true patriots gave their lives for and call it "The Patriot Act" was an outrage.
Our nation's true patriots bravely faced certain danger and risk of their lives. But they were willing to do so because they believed in the freedoms we were privileged to inherit. The people who attacked us on September 11, 2001 hate our way of life and its freedoms. They are determined to destroy our liberty. The legislative and executive branches of our government have cowardly and unwittingly joined forces with those who would destroy our freedoms and had the audacity to label it patriotism. God deliver me from "patriots" such as these!
It is past time for our elected leaders to find again the courage they lost and to once more stand up for liberty. Yes, there is risk. But then Patrick Henry, Ben Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and a host of others faced more certain risk. Many gave their lives. We do these true patriots no honor to name freedom robbing legislation after them.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 11, 2007
We remember well the horror of that day. We were angry, confused, and fearful all at the same time. We weren't sure who had done this, or why.
Eventually, the truth came out, and we responded. We reacted militarily in Afghanistan and legislatively in Congress. To their everlasting shame, our elected representatives ignored their oaths to uphold the Constitution of the United States and passed the Patriot Act.
Certainly, there were some new security measures called for. That is not in dispute. But to trample on the liberty our true patriots gave their lives for and call it "The Patriot Act" was an outrage.
Our nation's true patriots bravely faced certain danger and risk of their lives. But they were willing to do so because they believed in the freedoms we were privileged to inherit. The people who attacked us on September 11, 2001 hate our way of life and its freedoms. They are determined to destroy our liberty. The legislative and executive branches of our government have cowardly and unwittingly joined forces with those who would destroy our freedoms and had the audacity to label it patriotism. God deliver me from "patriots" such as these!
It is past time for our elected leaders to find again the courage they lost and to once more stand up for liberty. Yes, there is risk. But then Patrick Henry, Ben Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and a host of others faced more certain risk. Many gave their lives. We do these true patriots no honor to name freedom robbing legislation after them.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 11, 2007
Monday, September 10, 2007
Iraq - Where Do We Go From Here?
At the start of this blog, I mentioned that I was opposed to the United States going to war with Iraq. That was based on the information which had been shared to that point. I was not at all certain the case had been made. I also mentioned (to my shame) that I was largely silent on the issue trusting that our leadership had secret knowledge I did not. I thought they could make a more informed decision. Well, all that is water under the bridge. It doesn't matter whether we should have gone to war in Iraq or not. We are there now. So, what's the best course of action from here?
I don't know. The deed has been done. The Iraqi government that existed at the start of this war has been deposed and is definitely not coming back. That government was a brutal dictatorship, but it did maintain order. It did provide an infrastructure for the Iraqi society. It was a stable government.
I was raised to believe that when you make a mess, it is your responsibility to clean it up. I largely feel that way about our nation's responsibility toward Iraq. Frankly, I still don't want us there, but I am conflicted between my desire to have our forces home and my sense of moral obligation to do right by the Iraqi people.
The biggest question is, "Can we actually do anything to make this right?" If the answer is yes, then we need to do it. If the answer is no, then we need to stop and make an orderly withdrawal.
At first, I thought we could clean up our mess. But the present administration has so bungled managing the war's aftermath, I have no confidence in Bush's ability to set things right. I think perhaps a different administration could, but we won't experience a real change in government for about a year and a half. By that point, the American people will be so sick of this Iraq thing the new President will be hard pressed to get our forces out of Iraq without delay. Without the support of the American public, doing the right thing by Iraq may not be possible.
The Bush administration is not going to willingly pull the United States out of Iraq. Barring some major new development, Congress is not going to force the issue by cutting off funds. Between now and the next administration, the only change we can really hope for must come from the Iraqi people themselves. So far, they don't seem to sense the urgency. It's all quite sad.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 10, 2007
I don't know. The deed has been done. The Iraqi government that existed at the start of this war has been deposed and is definitely not coming back. That government was a brutal dictatorship, but it did maintain order. It did provide an infrastructure for the Iraqi society. It was a stable government.
I was raised to believe that when you make a mess, it is your responsibility to clean it up. I largely feel that way about our nation's responsibility toward Iraq. Frankly, I still don't want us there, but I am conflicted between my desire to have our forces home and my sense of moral obligation to do right by the Iraqi people.
The biggest question is, "Can we actually do anything to make this right?" If the answer is yes, then we need to do it. If the answer is no, then we need to stop and make an orderly withdrawal.
At first, I thought we could clean up our mess. But the present administration has so bungled managing the war's aftermath, I have no confidence in Bush's ability to set things right. I think perhaps a different administration could, but we won't experience a real change in government for about a year and a half. By that point, the American people will be so sick of this Iraq thing the new President will be hard pressed to get our forces out of Iraq without delay. Without the support of the American public, doing the right thing by Iraq may not be possible.
The Bush administration is not going to willingly pull the United States out of Iraq. Barring some major new development, Congress is not going to force the issue by cutting off funds. Between now and the next administration, the only change we can really hope for must come from the Iraqi people themselves. So far, they don't seem to sense the urgency. It's all quite sad.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 10, 2007
Sunday, September 9, 2007
The Demonization of Environmentalists
I got quite a start one day as I was reading a novel of fiction by conservative Christian writer, Larry Burkett. The novel was given to me as a Christmas gift. The giver genuinely thought I would enjoy reading it. What caught me off guard was the way it demonized environmentalists.
Whoa! When did this happen that environmentalists were regarded as the tools of Satan? It didn't make sense. It certainly did not square with my understanding of the Bible. But it provoked me to do a little probing.
In recent times, many in the evangelical Christian community (a.k.a. Christian right) have become more politically active. So what? Good citizenship is encouraged in Christian teaching. However, largely due to the efforts of the late Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and others, most of these Christian political activists have aligned themselves with the most conservative wing of the Republican party.
What my probing revealed was that many of these right wing Christians had been just as influenced by the party as they were able to influence the party for their causes. For example, in the same way these right wing Christians had pushed their agendas of Right to Life and intolerance of homosexuality onto right wing Republicans, the right wing Republicans had swayed many of these right wing Christians to embrace the other issues such as hostility toward environmentalists as their own. When this is put in a God versus the devil context in the minds of these right wing Christians, that must mean environmentalists are being used by the devil to thwart the purposes of God.
I couldn't believe people bought into that sort of nonsense. But, apparently, many have. I am reminded of the serpent telling Eve how good the forbidden fruit was for making them wise and godlike.
Quite the opposite of what anti-environmentalists might want Christians to believe, God gave mankind dominion over the earth to take care of it, not to destroy it. What greater evidence that God was concerned with the survival of the different species could we have than the narrative of Noah preserving numerous animals from the devastation of the flood? Jesus said that God cares about every sparrow that falls and even the lilies of the field. How can a Christian ignore the environment? Good stewardship of God's creation should be intrinsic to any sort of Christian political activism. Any other position is a lie from the devil, and it is time it was exposed.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 9, 2007
Whoa! When did this happen that environmentalists were regarded as the tools of Satan? It didn't make sense. It certainly did not square with my understanding of the Bible. But it provoked me to do a little probing.
In recent times, many in the evangelical Christian community (a.k.a. Christian right) have become more politically active. So what? Good citizenship is encouraged in Christian teaching. However, largely due to the efforts of the late Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and others, most of these Christian political activists have aligned themselves with the most conservative wing of the Republican party.
What my probing revealed was that many of these right wing Christians had been just as influenced by the party as they were able to influence the party for their causes. For example, in the same way these right wing Christians had pushed their agendas of Right to Life and intolerance of homosexuality onto right wing Republicans, the right wing Republicans had swayed many of these right wing Christians to embrace the other issues such as hostility toward environmentalists as their own. When this is put in a God versus the devil context in the minds of these right wing Christians, that must mean environmentalists are being used by the devil to thwart the purposes of God.
I couldn't believe people bought into that sort of nonsense. But, apparently, many have. I am reminded of the serpent telling Eve how good the forbidden fruit was for making them wise and godlike.
Quite the opposite of what anti-environmentalists might want Christians to believe, God gave mankind dominion over the earth to take care of it, not to destroy it. What greater evidence that God was concerned with the survival of the different species could we have than the narrative of Noah preserving numerous animals from the devastation of the flood? Jesus said that God cares about every sparrow that falls and even the lilies of the field. How can a Christian ignore the environment? Good stewardship of God's creation should be intrinsic to any sort of Christian political activism. Any other position is a lie from the devil, and it is time it was exposed.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 9, 2007
The Thompson Non-Event
It finally came this past week, the formal announcement that Fred Thompson was entering the race for the Republican nomination for President. People who watch politics have been anticipating his entry for months. After all, in something similar to "pre-engagement," Fred Thompson had previously announced he was going to announce during the week of Labor Day. The lack of surprise actually detracted from the event.
The media tried, and continues to try, to play it up to increase readership/viewership, but the public was largely ho hum on the matter. It was almost yesterday's news even before it happened. There was little new to report.
Fred Thompson really missed an opportunity here. He has taken all this time to formally enter the race. And, when he finally does, he has little to offer in the way of substance.
After all this getting ready to get ready, the public rightfully expected a candidate to emerge with a largely formed (if not fully formed) agenda. The announcement of Thompson's entry would have been newsworthy if he had coupled that announcement with a substantive presentation of his personal platform. Instead, Fred Thompson presents us with what is chiefly a political philosophical statement and little concrete content. The phrase, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing," comes to mind.
Don't misunderstand me. Knowing and understanding the guiding philosophy behind a candidate is important. That philosophy dictates (or should) all the decisions a candidate is likely to make whether addressed in the course of a political campaign or not. But, the voter has a right to expect some material examples of how a particular candidate is going to apply that philosophy to make a positive difference.
There is a danger in putting out specifics. Opponents to one action or another will always emerge. But, a true statesman does not shirk from opposition. Instead, he welcomes the dialog.
Fred Thompson knew that by not announcing his formal entry into the race until he did, he cut himself off from participating in the Republican debate in New Hampshire. He could have been there had he announced a few days earlier. Why didn't he?
I now believe Thompson feared appearing on stage with other candidates who actually had some specific plans for what they wanted to do as President. He feared being shown up. He feared facing them empty handed.
The absence of specifics in a Thompson agenda allows voters to fill in the blanks with whatever their hearts desire. Clearly, that is the way Thompson wants it. Debating with other candidates might have exposed him as lacking substance. It is far easier to work from a prepared script.
Fred Thompson had the attention of the media this last week and could have used it to present his agenda. But, if he has one, it is still largely a secret. This may have been the most costly mistake of the Thompson campaign.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 9, 2007
The media tried, and continues to try, to play it up to increase readership/viewership, but the public was largely ho hum on the matter. It was almost yesterday's news even before it happened. There was little new to report.
Fred Thompson really missed an opportunity here. He has taken all this time to formally enter the race. And, when he finally does, he has little to offer in the way of substance.
After all this getting ready to get ready, the public rightfully expected a candidate to emerge with a largely formed (if not fully formed) agenda. The announcement of Thompson's entry would have been newsworthy if he had coupled that announcement with a substantive presentation of his personal platform. Instead, Fred Thompson presents us with what is chiefly a political philosophical statement and little concrete content. The phrase, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing," comes to mind.
Don't misunderstand me. Knowing and understanding the guiding philosophy behind a candidate is important. That philosophy dictates (or should) all the decisions a candidate is likely to make whether addressed in the course of a political campaign or not. But, the voter has a right to expect some material examples of how a particular candidate is going to apply that philosophy to make a positive difference.
There is a danger in putting out specifics. Opponents to one action or another will always emerge. But, a true statesman does not shirk from opposition. Instead, he welcomes the dialog.
Fred Thompson knew that by not announcing his formal entry into the race until he did, he cut himself off from participating in the Republican debate in New Hampshire. He could have been there had he announced a few days earlier. Why didn't he?
I now believe Thompson feared appearing on stage with other candidates who actually had some specific plans for what they wanted to do as President. He feared being shown up. He feared facing them empty handed.
The absence of specifics in a Thompson agenda allows voters to fill in the blanks with whatever their hearts desire. Clearly, that is the way Thompson wants it. Debating with other candidates might have exposed him as lacking substance. It is far easier to work from a prepared script.
Fred Thompson had the attention of the media this last week and could have used it to present his agenda. But, if he has one, it is still largely a secret. This may have been the most costly mistake of the Thompson campaign.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 9, 2007
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Believing In One's Position
"You think you're right, don't you?" Vicki stood looking at me as if she had made some sort of accusation.
Puzzled, I asked my cousin what she meant. "You're right; that's what you think," came the response.
Still mystified, I stammered out, "Of course. I wouldn't have said it if I didn't."
"That's what I thought," my cousin said and walked off as if she had made some sort of point.
I was confused. She did NOT accuse me of believing I am always right about everything. I could have at least understood her attitude if she had said that. She just berated me for believing I was right in this instance.
Somehow, that did not strike me as a character flaw. Instead, believing in one's position and being able to defend it seems to me to be more of an asset.
Much time has passed since that conversation. I don't even remember the subject matter we were discussing. But I have never forgotten the odd outcome. It comes to mind occasionally when someone will ironically voice the view that people should not express opinions. I know they think they're right.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 8, 2007
Puzzled, I asked my cousin what she meant. "You're right; that's what you think," came the response.
Still mystified, I stammered out, "Of course. I wouldn't have said it if I didn't."
"That's what I thought," my cousin said and walked off as if she had made some sort of point.
I was confused. She did NOT accuse me of believing I am always right about everything. I could have at least understood her attitude if she had said that. She just berated me for believing I was right in this instance.
Somehow, that did not strike me as a character flaw. Instead, believing in one's position and being able to defend it seems to me to be more of an asset.
Much time has passed since that conversation. I don't even remember the subject matter we were discussing. But I have never forgotten the odd outcome. It comes to mind occasionally when someone will ironically voice the view that people should not express opinions. I know they think they're right.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 8, 2007
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Iraqi Internal Conflict Should Not Be a Surprise
Should the current civil conflict in Iraq have come as a surprise? I don't think so. The tensions between the Sunnis and the Shiites have been playing out in the Arab world for a long time. Saddam Hussein felt like the Kurds were in the way and tried to exterminate them, so naturally some bad feelings persisted there.
Recent events in our world should have prepared us to expect some strife if not outright civil war. We have had several notable examples of suppressed conflict bubbling to the surface when the iron fist of oppression was removed. The totalitarian government was the glue keeping the whole together.
Take the former Soviet Union, for example. When the communist government collapsed, the different republics started asserting their own feelings of nationalism. Ethnic tensions that had been glossed over reasserted themselves. The initial attempts to hang together as a loose federation collapsed.
The same thing happened in Czechoslovakia. It also happened in Yugoslavia. Iraq was a similarly divided country held together by an oppressive dictator. When that dictator was removed, why should we expect a result any different from other countries whose ethnic conflicts had been suppressed rather than resolved.
The ethnic conflict genie has been let out of the bottle. There is no putting it back in.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 6, 2007
Recent events in our world should have prepared us to expect some strife if not outright civil war. We have had several notable examples of suppressed conflict bubbling to the surface when the iron fist of oppression was removed. The totalitarian government was the glue keeping the whole together.
Take the former Soviet Union, for example. When the communist government collapsed, the different republics started asserting their own feelings of nationalism. Ethnic tensions that had been glossed over reasserted themselves. The initial attempts to hang together as a loose federation collapsed.
The same thing happened in Czechoslovakia. It also happened in Yugoslavia. Iraq was a similarly divided country held together by an oppressive dictator. When that dictator was removed, why should we expect a result any different from other countries whose ethnic conflicts had been suppressed rather than resolved.
The ethnic conflict genie has been let out of the bottle. There is no putting it back in.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 6, 2007
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Hold the Mayo
I like mayonnaise. I don't mean I like to take a spoon and eat it from the jar. No, I mean I like mayonnaise as a condiment. It's my condiment of choice on any sort of poultry sandwich. It's a vital component of my tuna fish salad. I do like mayonnaise -- IN MODERATION.
I live in the metropolitan Atlanta area. I moved here in 1988 from Fort Worth, Texas. There are always some regional adjustments to make such a move. But one that surprised me was the way so many people in Atlanta use mayonnaise, not so much as a condiment, but as the primary purpose of the sandwich. Frankly, such soggy creations grossed me out.
Whenever I ordered any sort of sandwich with mayonnaise, I was often opening it up after receiving it and scraping off as much mayonnaise as I could. The mayo that was left, that is what had soaked up into the bread, was as much or more than what I wanted. I would have a pile of mayo on my plate sufficient to make a couple of more sandwiches.
The first few times this happened, I wondered if the sandwich had been made by a teenager on his first job. Later, I observed experienced adults slathering the mayonnaise onto the bread like a bricklayer applying mortar. There was so much it squished out the sides when you picked it up. That did it for me. Then and there I started saying, "Hold the mayo!" whenever I ordered a sandwich. I'll occasionally ask for the mayo on the side. But most often, I will substitute mustard. They do a better job of moderating that.
I still use mayonnaise at home. But as far as dining out goes, I don't trust any Atlanta area sandwich makers near me with the stuff. It's a shame their mothers never taught them the difference between a condiment and the main event.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 5, 2007
I live in the metropolitan Atlanta area. I moved here in 1988 from Fort Worth, Texas. There are always some regional adjustments to make such a move. But one that surprised me was the way so many people in Atlanta use mayonnaise, not so much as a condiment, but as the primary purpose of the sandwich. Frankly, such soggy creations grossed me out.
Whenever I ordered any sort of sandwich with mayonnaise, I was often opening it up after receiving it and scraping off as much mayonnaise as I could. The mayo that was left, that is what had soaked up into the bread, was as much or more than what I wanted. I would have a pile of mayo on my plate sufficient to make a couple of more sandwiches.
The first few times this happened, I wondered if the sandwich had been made by a teenager on his first job. Later, I observed experienced adults slathering the mayonnaise onto the bread like a bricklayer applying mortar. There was so much it squished out the sides when you picked it up. That did it for me. Then and there I started saying, "Hold the mayo!" whenever I ordered a sandwich. I'll occasionally ask for the mayo on the side. But most often, I will substitute mustard. They do a better job of moderating that.
I still use mayonnaise at home. But as far as dining out goes, I don't trust any Atlanta area sandwich makers near me with the stuff. It's a shame their mothers never taught them the difference between a condiment and the main event.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 5, 2007
Are Civil Unions Different From Marriage
One of the most hotly contested issues in our day is the question of whether to accept or reject the concept of same gender marriage. This issue remains quite contentious in the main stream even though few (I know of one) presidential candidates actually support the idea of national legal recognition and acceptance of same gender marriage.
The majority of candidates reject imposing legal recognition of same gender marriage upon the entire country. Instead, where they differ is on the matter of "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships". These latter institutions seem to be an effort to provide the legal protections and benefits of marriage without the title.
Some candidates reject even these alternative institutions for the same reasons they reject same gender marriage. They simply want no legal recognition of any sort for same gender domestic relationships. The inherent consistency makes their positions easier to understand whether or not one agrees with them.
Its harder to understand those who do not support universal recognition of same gender marriage but at the same time do support this recognition for same gender civil unions. If civil unions convey the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as legal marriage, is there really a difference other than terminology? Gay rights leaders seem to think there is. The American public as a whole seems to think there is a difference.
Current polls show the majority of Americans oppose same gender marriage. However, those same polls show a majority of Americans are not opposed to same gender civil unions. What is this perceived difference?
To the candidates who support civil unions and oppose national recognition of gay marriage I believe they see the difference as little more than a question of electability. If they support "gay marriage" they will hurt their chances with the voters because of the voters' perception of a difference. Yes, my cynicism is showing.
Actually, I think most of the American public is conflicted. The majority believe that same gender sexual relationships are morally wrong. Most will site religious reasons for these views. At the same time, they feel a civic responsibility to recognize the rights of others to differ. They recognize right of individuals not have the religious morals of other people (majority or not) imposed upon them by government. They resolve this conflict within their own minds by opposing same gender marriage but allowing for same gender civil unions or registered domestic partnerships. It would seem to be a distinction of convenience, a way of saying, "I will allow, but I will not approve."
Gay rights leaders must recognize this implicit disapproval. They must also fear that different terminology for marriage and civil unions will provide the basis for future legal discrimination. That is why I believe they will continue their push for national recognition of gay marriages even if they get nationally recognized civil unions. This issue is not going away any time soon.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 5, 2007
The majority of candidates reject imposing legal recognition of same gender marriage upon the entire country. Instead, where they differ is on the matter of "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships". These latter institutions seem to be an effort to provide the legal protections and benefits of marriage without the title.
Some candidates reject even these alternative institutions for the same reasons they reject same gender marriage. They simply want no legal recognition of any sort for same gender domestic relationships. The inherent consistency makes their positions easier to understand whether or not one agrees with them.
Its harder to understand those who do not support universal recognition of same gender marriage but at the same time do support this recognition for same gender civil unions. If civil unions convey the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as legal marriage, is there really a difference other than terminology? Gay rights leaders seem to think there is. The American public as a whole seems to think there is a difference.
Current polls show the majority of Americans oppose same gender marriage. However, those same polls show a majority of Americans are not opposed to same gender civil unions. What is this perceived difference?
To the candidates who support civil unions and oppose national recognition of gay marriage I believe they see the difference as little more than a question of electability. If they support "gay marriage" they will hurt their chances with the voters because of the voters' perception of a difference. Yes, my cynicism is showing.
Actually, I think most of the American public is conflicted. The majority believe that same gender sexual relationships are morally wrong. Most will site religious reasons for these views. At the same time, they feel a civic responsibility to recognize the rights of others to differ. They recognize right of individuals not have the religious morals of other people (majority or not) imposed upon them by government. They resolve this conflict within their own minds by opposing same gender marriage but allowing for same gender civil unions or registered domestic partnerships. It would seem to be a distinction of convenience, a way of saying, "I will allow, but I will not approve."
Gay rights leaders must recognize this implicit disapproval. They must also fear that different terminology for marriage and civil unions will provide the basis for future legal discrimination. That is why I believe they will continue their push for national recognition of gay marriages even if they get nationally recognized civil unions. This issue is not going away any time soon.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 5, 2007
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Make Room For Flip-Flops
The political season is in full swing. The different candidates are under constant examination by each other, the media, special interests, and their constituents. Periodically, someone accuses this or that person of flip-flopping on one issue or another. This accusation is intended as a challenge to that person's sincerity and depth of conviction.
This sort of exchange may get traction with the voter, but I think it is highly overrated. Over the course of my life, there are many subjects on which I have changed my opinion. Sometimes, it was because I simply matured. Other times, I received new information which altered my perception. For example, at one point in my life, I considered myself to be a Democrat. At a different period in my life, I was a card carrying Republican. Today, when someone asks, I say I am a political cynic.
If we are going to relate honestly with ourselves and with political candidates, we must allow that there are times when people will change their minds. The only people I know who never change their minds are closed minded boobs, people so arrogant they believe their first judgment is always right and never needs to be reconsidered. Do we really want such persons serving in elected office? I don't! In fact, one of the characteristics I look for in leadership is the ability to receive and consider advice.
So, it doesn't bother me too much when I hear that a particular politician who once embraced one position is now advocating something different. What I want to know is how that person explains the change. I want to know where that person stands on the issue today and why. I'll make my voting decisions based on how closely I agree with the candidate's position in the present.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 4, 2007
This sort of exchange may get traction with the voter, but I think it is highly overrated. Over the course of my life, there are many subjects on which I have changed my opinion. Sometimes, it was because I simply matured. Other times, I received new information which altered my perception. For example, at one point in my life, I considered myself to be a Democrat. At a different period in my life, I was a card carrying Republican. Today, when someone asks, I say I am a political cynic.
If we are going to relate honestly with ourselves and with political candidates, we must allow that there are times when people will change their minds. The only people I know who never change their minds are closed minded boobs, people so arrogant they believe their first judgment is always right and never needs to be reconsidered. Do we really want such persons serving in elected office? I don't! In fact, one of the characteristics I look for in leadership is the ability to receive and consider advice.
So, it doesn't bother me too much when I hear that a particular politician who once embraced one position is now advocating something different. What I want to know is how that person explains the change. I want to know where that person stands on the issue today and why. I'll make my voting decisions based on how closely I agree with the candidate's position in the present.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 4, 2007
Monday, September 3, 2007
Protecting American Labor by Raising Foreign Worker Standards
Labor Day seems like a good time to speak out on the subject of offshore outsourcing. We are seeing more and more of it. Just recently, Earthlink (a locally based company) announced they are laying off hundreds more American workers. They have been outsourcing much of their technical support to India for years. This is just the latest fallout from that. Numerous companies and even some state governments have been following this trend.
Why is the U.S. losing so many jobs to people in other countries? It is not because we lack the talent or the work ethic. The reason is virtually always to save labor costs. Corporations do this to improve their profits for their stock holders. Some state governments have been doing this because of budgetary constraints. They need to stretch the tax payer dollars.
Some of this job redistribution is inevitable in a global market. Advances in telecommunications and rapid shipping has made the entire rest of the world both our marketplace and our competitor for goods and services.
So, what is the best role for labor unions in today's world? I think it is still the same as the best role labor unions have had historically -- insuring fair and just treatment of workers. In a global market this means applying all the political pressure possible to our elected officials to require all trade agreements demand the same high standards of safety and reasonable treatment of laborers in the countries where the work is done as we require in the United States.
Why care about the safety and fair treatment of foreign laborers? Certainly it is moral and humane, but there is a more self-serving reason. Compliance with safety standards and treating workers fairly costs money. Raising the cost of foreign labor serves to level the playing field. This helps our domestic workers be more competitive than they are now.
There are additional ways we can help our workers become more competitive in the global marketplace, but that is a subject for another day. Today, we celebrate American labor and its accomplishments. Long live the American worker!
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 3, 2007
Why is the U.S. losing so many jobs to people in other countries? It is not because we lack the talent or the work ethic. The reason is virtually always to save labor costs. Corporations do this to improve their profits for their stock holders. Some state governments have been doing this because of budgetary constraints. They need to stretch the tax payer dollars.
Some of this job redistribution is inevitable in a global market. Advances in telecommunications and rapid shipping has made the entire rest of the world both our marketplace and our competitor for goods and services.
So, what is the best role for labor unions in today's world? I think it is still the same as the best role labor unions have had historically -- insuring fair and just treatment of workers. In a global market this means applying all the political pressure possible to our elected officials to require all trade agreements demand the same high standards of safety and reasonable treatment of laborers in the countries where the work is done as we require in the United States.
Why care about the safety and fair treatment of foreign laborers? Certainly it is moral and humane, but there is a more self-serving reason. Compliance with safety standards and treating workers fairly costs money. Raising the cost of foreign labor serves to level the playing field. This helps our domestic workers be more competitive than they are now.
There are additional ways we can help our workers become more competitive in the global marketplace, but that is a subject for another day. Today, we celebrate American labor and its accomplishments. Long live the American worker!
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 3, 2007
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Can a Christian Accept Abortion?
This post contains an argument which I presently believe to be both correct and outrageous. How can that be? Read on.
Sometimes I am confronted with the question, "Can a person be a good Christian and not be opposed to abortion?" Or, to phrase it differently, "Can a Christian be true to his faith and also defend a woman's right to control her own body?"
To understand the question, you must be aware that mainstream Christian orthodoxy holds that we are persons in the sight of God while yet within our mothers' wombs and are still (to all appearances) "unformed substance." If that is true, it must follow that to willfully destroy such a one is to kill a human person.
That being said, it must also be acknowledged that taking the life of another human being is not always murder. There are many circumstances when doing this is justified. So, it does NOT automatically follow that abortion equals murder. The question becomes, "Is the abortion justified?"
Consider the following presuppositions. They are based on conservative evangelical Christian perspectives.
1) Though "born in sin" children are in a state of grace until they reach a capacity (sometimes referred to as the "age of accountability") when they can respond to the salvation given through Jesus Christ.
2) All persons who fail to accept salvation given through Jesus Christ are doomed to spend eternity in hell.
3) More people are going to hell than will be going to heaven.
4) All who die before reaching the age of accountability are taken to heaven.
If one accepts these presuppositions (and they are embraced by nearly all evangelical Christians), then the following conclusions must also be true.
1) Aborted babies never have the chance to reach the age of accountability.
2) Aborted babies go to heaven.
3) If they had lived, the majority of aborted babies would have gone to hell.
It is certainly unchristian to desire more people to go to hell. However, when one takes these premises to their extreme conclusions, one could justify abortion. One could also use the same logic to justify widespread infanticide. Fortunately, something within us says this is wrong. It is so contrary to our God given instincts that we draw the line there.
I said at the beginning, this was an outrageous argument. I also believe it is based upon precepts which are correct.
I am not saying that Christians everywhere should be satisfied that abortion is okay. What I am suggesting is that from an eternal perspective, abortion is not the catastrophe some would make it out to be. It is acceptable to just let the issue alone.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 2, 2007
Sometimes I am confronted with the question, "Can a person be a good Christian and not be opposed to abortion?" Or, to phrase it differently, "Can a Christian be true to his faith and also defend a woman's right to control her own body?"
To understand the question, you must be aware that mainstream Christian orthodoxy holds that we are persons in the sight of God while yet within our mothers' wombs and are still (to all appearances) "unformed substance." If that is true, it must follow that to willfully destroy such a one is to kill a human person.
That being said, it must also be acknowledged that taking the life of another human being is not always murder. There are many circumstances when doing this is justified. So, it does NOT automatically follow that abortion equals murder. The question becomes, "Is the abortion justified?"
Consider the following presuppositions. They are based on conservative evangelical Christian perspectives.
1) Though "born in sin" children are in a state of grace until they reach a capacity (sometimes referred to as the "age of accountability") when they can respond to the salvation given through Jesus Christ.
2) All persons who fail to accept salvation given through Jesus Christ are doomed to spend eternity in hell.
3) More people are going to hell than will be going to heaven.
4) All who die before reaching the age of accountability are taken to heaven.
If one accepts these presuppositions (and they are embraced by nearly all evangelical Christians), then the following conclusions must also be true.
1) Aborted babies never have the chance to reach the age of accountability.
2) Aborted babies go to heaven.
3) If they had lived, the majority of aborted babies would have gone to hell.
It is certainly unchristian to desire more people to go to hell. However, when one takes these premises to their extreme conclusions, one could justify abortion. One could also use the same logic to justify widespread infanticide. Fortunately, something within us says this is wrong. It is so contrary to our God given instincts that we draw the line there.
I said at the beginning, this was an outrageous argument. I also believe it is based upon precepts which are correct.
I am not saying that Christians everywhere should be satisfied that abortion is okay. What I am suggesting is that from an eternal perspective, abortion is not the catastrophe some would make it out to be. It is acceptable to just let the issue alone.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 2, 2007
Uncommon Incompetence
I was strongly opposed to beginning U.S. war action in Iraq. (There were several reasons for my view, but that is a subject all its own.) But, I was also convinced that if we did go to war, it was essential that we pursue it vigorously to a successful conclusion. Our national credibility was on the line. If the world was going to continue to take the United States seriously, we could not stop short of utterly defeating the government of Saddam Hussein. So, once the battle was engaged, I supported doing everything possible to bring it to a victorious conclusion.
The inherent problem with deposing any government is that it must be replaced. Even the worst and most oppressive governments on the planet fulfill some vital functions. Maintaining order is chief among them. This is SO basic that I was flabbergasted when the coalition forces allowed Baghdad to descend into anarchy following Saddam Hussein's ouster. I could not believe the incompetence!
Eventually, some semblance of order was restored but only after considerable damage had been done. It was as if the victorious military had no idea what to do with itself after the Iraqi government had been defeated. I'll grant you that George W. Bush is not the brightest bulb on the tree, but couldn't his advisers have warned about the need for immediate next step planning and implementation?
This delay in restoring order told the Iraqi people and the rest of the world that the coalition forces were being led by incompetents. It was an open invitation to anyone who wanted to create havoc in the coming days. How could it be taken otherwise?
Jesus said that when an evil spirit is cast out, if it finds that nothing has replaced it, it will take seven other spirits that are even more evil and return. That makes the latter state worse than the former. This is ancient wisdom. WHY WAS IT OVERLOOKED?
I don't have a satisfactory answer to this question. My inability to understand the lack of foresight undermines my confidence in the Bush administration's ability to bring any sort of long term benefit for this military action to our country, the Middle East, or even the people of Iraq.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 2, 2007
The inherent problem with deposing any government is that it must be replaced. Even the worst and most oppressive governments on the planet fulfill some vital functions. Maintaining order is chief among them. This is SO basic that I was flabbergasted when the coalition forces allowed Baghdad to descend into anarchy following Saddam Hussein's ouster. I could not believe the incompetence!
Eventually, some semblance of order was restored but only after considerable damage had been done. It was as if the victorious military had no idea what to do with itself after the Iraqi government had been defeated. I'll grant you that George W. Bush is not the brightest bulb on the tree, but couldn't his advisers have warned about the need for immediate next step planning and implementation?
This delay in restoring order told the Iraqi people and the rest of the world that the coalition forces were being led by incompetents. It was an open invitation to anyone who wanted to create havoc in the coming days. How could it be taken otherwise?
Jesus said that when an evil spirit is cast out, if it finds that nothing has replaced it, it will take seven other spirits that are even more evil and return. That makes the latter state worse than the former. This is ancient wisdom. WHY WAS IT OVERLOOKED?
I don't have a satisfactory answer to this question. My inability to understand the lack of foresight undermines my confidence in the Bush administration's ability to bring any sort of long term benefit for this military action to our country, the Middle East, or even the people of Iraq.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 2, 2007
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Senator Craig Resigns - So What?
It is official. Senator Larry Craig of Idaho is resigning effective the last day of September. What has been interesting to me is that nearly all the calls for Craig's resignation have come from members of his own party.
While Senator Craig did plead guilty for improper conduct in an airport men's room, there was nothing about what he did that in any way abused his office. It was certainly embarrassing to the Senate, but it in no way affected the performance of his duties until the story was made public.
Whether or not Craig should have resigned is not for me to say. What I find interesting is the piling on of criticism by members of his own party with such characterizations as "unforgivable" and "disgusting". Given the many personal failings in the lives of numerous political figures, I find this sort of vilification by Craig's colleagues to be excessive. I can't help wonder what motivates it. I have observed that many closeted homosexuals (who were later exposed) led public lives in which they denounced anything having to do with homosexuality with particular vehemence. Senator Craig himself seems to have been guilty of this sort of hypocrisy.
Without question, any sort of sexual behaviour between people in a public restroom is completely inappropriate. However, I cannot see the justification for condemning that more harshly than, say, picking up a prostitute. In short, regarding this extreme harshness that Craig has met with, I can only say, "Me thinks they doth protest too much."
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 1, 2007
While Senator Craig did plead guilty for improper conduct in an airport men's room, there was nothing about what he did that in any way abused his office. It was certainly embarrassing to the Senate, but it in no way affected the performance of his duties until the story was made public.
Whether or not Craig should have resigned is not for me to say. What I find interesting is the piling on of criticism by members of his own party with such characterizations as "unforgivable" and "disgusting". Given the many personal failings in the lives of numerous political figures, I find this sort of vilification by Craig's colleagues to be excessive. I can't help wonder what motivates it. I have observed that many closeted homosexuals (who were later exposed) led public lives in which they denounced anything having to do with homosexuality with particular vehemence. Senator Craig himself seems to have been guilty of this sort of hypocrisy.
Without question, any sort of sexual behaviour between people in a public restroom is completely inappropriate. However, I cannot see the justification for condemning that more harshly than, say, picking up a prostitute. In short, regarding this extreme harshness that Craig has met with, I can only say, "Me thinks they doth protest too much."
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
September 1, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)